Scanning 8x10

[tenderobject]

Hi guys,

I want to ask what is the standard output size to use when scanning 8x10 negatives?

I'm using Microtek i800+. I usually use 2400ppi max res. I wonder what should be better for printing larger than 8x10 from it.

Thanks!

[Ari]

I scan 8x10 on the Epson v750, usually at 720 dpi; this gives me a 16x20 at 360 dpi.
It depends how large you want to print.

[tenderobject]

Wow! So, i'm over doing it?!

16x20 sounds good to me. I've been scanning my 8x10 negs at 8x10 output, 2400dpi!!!
Is this too much? I never see any problem with my image when scanned like this. Actually i like it although it is slow to scan and get a lot of space..
Ha! I never printed the scanned images yet.

Ari, do you use any glass to flat the neg in the glass bed? Any tips on that? I noticed some of the negs i scanned earlier has white corners..

I scan 8x10 on the Epson v750, usually at 720 dpi; this gives me a 16x20 at 360 dpi.
It depends how large you want to print.

[Ken Lee]

what is the standard output size to use when scanning 8x10 negatives?

I'm using Microtek i800+. I usually use 2400ppi max res. I wonder what should be better for printing larger than 8x10 from it.

You might find this article helpful: see the section entitled Which Scanning Resolution ?

[Ari]

Wow! So, i'm over doing it?!

16x20 sounds good to me. I've been scanning my 8x10 negs at 8x10 output, 2400dpi!!!
Is this too much? I never see any problem with my image when scanned like this. Actually i like it although it is slow to scan and get a lot of space..
Ha! I never printed the scanned images yet.

Ari, do you use any glass to flat the neg in the glass bed? Any tips on that? I noticed some of the negs i scanned earlier has white corners..

I've used Ken's scanning article before as a guide, and it's worked well for me.
I don't know your scanner, but 2400 dpi is possibly overkill, again depending on your desired print size.

I haven't spent time to see if scanning at 1440dpi, then reducing to 360dpi, will make for a better print; maybe someone here has done so and can offer their expertise.

For 8x10, I scan directly on the scanner bed, no extra glass; my film usually comes out flat, but when it doesn't, I tape down the corners.

Good luck with the Microtek!

[Peter De Smidt]

These scanners work by having a linear ccd sensor with a given number of elements, probably around 4000, and a zoom lens. (The pro scanners at the time used a Kodak 8000 element tri-linear ccd.) The lens zooms to cover the film, but you will always only have a given number of samples in the short direction of the bed. What that means is that resolution of the scanner changes with film size. So if a 35mm film is limited to a theoretical resolution of 4000, then 120 film, being roughly twice as wide, will be limited to 2000.... The only way around this is to scan in small strips and combine the files. Some Creo scanners do that automatically, and they had a patent on it. (I'm not sure who owns this now.) Those scanners cost thousands of dollars, and so I doubt very much that the Microtek does that. Anything over the resolution of the sensor will be interpolated in software. It's unlikely that your scanner is giving you anywhere close to 2400 dpi of real resolution with 8x10 film. The only way to know would be to test with a chrome on glass resolution target. Another way, even better really, would be to scan a negative at different resolutions and then make prints. Do the higher res files give better results in your workflow? You might check scanning at 720 versus 1440. Anything higher is probably a waste of time with your scanner and 8x10 film.

[tenderobject]

Thank you Ken!

You might find this article helpful: see the section entitled Which Scanning Resolution ?

[tenderobject]

Thanks Ari. I'm still trying to figure out this digital workflow. I have this scanner for about 1 year now and i haven't maximized it's potential.
I'll try to print some of my scanned images soon to check how good this scanner is. As this is not like the Epson v750/700. It's PITA sometimes. The software included with my scanner is really bad! It has some presets for film which i can't disable! Maybe getting a Silverfast software would ease my process..

I've used Ken's scanning article before as a guide, and it's worked well for me.
I don't know your scanner, but 2400 dpi is possibly overkill, again depending on your desired print size.

I haven't spent time to see if scanning at 1440dpi, then reducing to 360dpi, will make for a better print; maybe someone here has done so and can offer their expertise.

For 8x10, I scan directly on the scanner bed, no extra glass; my film usually comes out flat, but when it doesn't, I tape down the corners.

Good luck with the Microtek!

[tenderobject]

WOW thanks for this info!

This is the specs of my scanner.

http://www.microtekusa.com/products.php?KindID=3&ID=38

4800 x 9600 dpi resolution and 4.0 Dmax optical density
Built-in 8" x 12" transparency adapter delivers professional results
Exclusive EZ-Lock™ film holders
No need to warm up
6 Smart-Touch buttons
Unique ColoRescue™ system
Tailor-made Scanning Software for Mac System

I know this is not better than any other flatbed around that can scan up to 8x10 but this is what i have here right now. So, maximizing its potential for me is a must.. I'll try to print some of my scans soon to check the quality. So i have to keep in mind that scanning my 8x10 negative @ 2400dpi is a waste of time. Maybe with 35mm film 2400 is good? Although i rarely shoot 35mm now. 8x10 and 617. To be in the safe side what resolution should i use for an 16x20 to 24x30 prints for 8x10 format? I'm a bit confused on the output settings as well. If i scan 8x10 for example. An output setting of 8x10 would be good enough?
For example: 8x10 negs output setting: 8x10 (inch) 1200dpi, 6x17 negs output setting: 6x17 (cm) at 1200dpi?

Thank you guys!!!

These scanners work by having a linear ccd sensor with a given number of elements, probably around 4000, and a zoom lens. (The pro scanners at the time used a Kodak 8000 element tri-linear ccd.) The lens zooms to cover the film, but you will always only have a given number of samples in the short direction of the bed. What that means is that resolution of the scanner changes with film size. So if a 35mm film is limited to a theoretical resolution of 4000, then 120 film, being roughly twice as wide, will be limited to 2000.... The only way around this is to scan in small strips and combine the files. Some Creo scanners do that automatically, and they had a patent on it. (I'm not sure who owns this now.) Those scanners cost thousands of dollars, and so I doubt very much that the Microtek does that. Anything over the resolution of the sensor will be interpolated in software. It's unlikely that your scanner is giving you anywhere close to 2400 dpi of real resolution with 8x10 film. The only way to know would be to test with a chrome on glass resolution target. Another way, even better really, would be to scan a negative at different resolutions and then make prints. Do the higher res files give better results in your workflow? You might check scanning at 720 versus 1440. Anything higher is probably a waste of time with your scanner and 8x10 film.

[StoneNYC]

It's interesting about the line reducing the resolution and interpolation, I find that I can scan 120 at 3200 but 35mm doesn't seem much better past 2400 and 4x5 does best at 2400 again, maybe it's the film base thickness? I don't know lol

Edit: with my V750